Herb Douglass is against Emergent Church

Herb Douglas appears to be about to conclude his series of articles entitled New Spirituality Movement, Part II: Emerging/Emergent Church and Spiritual Formation, Part 3: Emerging / Emergent Church, What is the Message of the Emerging Church? (Part 4). As you can tell from the title his articles are about the Emerging church or the Emergent Church movement which he considers a new spirituality movement.. Herb is highly critical of the Emerging church while speaking of it in extremely vague ways.

The first article deals mainly with Seeker Sensitive churches. Dr. Douglas states:

“But in 2007, the mesmerizing balloon busted, at least for Hybels. His pastoral staff quietly and deliberately finished a four-year, self-evaluation as to what their highly acclaimed program was really doing for thirty years. In their book, Reveal: Where Are You?, they were honest enough to broadcast what they learned and it was embarrassing. Hybels said that it "rocked my world"—that the findings were "earth-shaking," "ground breaking," and "mind blowing." They now realized that their seeker-friendly programs were "a mistake." The lesson Hybels and his staff learned is that "growing" a congregation goes beyond "attracting" people to church—they needed to restructure their church program to grow their members in their personal relationship with God. His new program is turning out to be another path into New Spirituality. What will the hundreds of Adventist copycats now say to their congregations?”

His only reference to the actual New Spirituality or Emergent church is found in this paragraph:

“If anyone in the past year has been following Christianity Today, the flagship of Evangelicalism, he or she will have noted that it has become the standard-bearer for the Ancient-Future Movement, otherwise known as New Spirituality. It came out of the closet with the February, 2008 issue [see articles here, here and here]. Our friend, David Neff, is the magazine's editor in chief and a leader in advancing churches everywhere into New Spirituality. I read every issue with great interest, with great appreciation for many of its emphases—but the drift is palpable. More on my next blog.”

That kind of prelude certainly should interest most people into finding out what this New Spirituality is. But Dr. Douglas never fulfills our expectations. What Dr. Douglas provides in the next three articles is his opinions without any substantive evidence. As he continues in article two:

“Spiritualism is the open appeal to find Reality, God, Cosmic Consciousness, whatever, through direct contact with the "other" world. It could be through channeling, ouija boards, séances, certain kinds of extra-sensory perception, etc.”

“New Spirituality, at this point in time, doesn't go in that direction although it has much in common with Spiritualism. Both concepts and movements believe in either the immortal soul or the subjective ability to find God or reality within themselves through any number of modalities. Neither believes in the final authority of Scripture or the exclusivity of Jesus Christ.

What does that really mean? The vast majority of Christians believe in the immortal soul but I am sure it loses some persuasive zest if one says New Spirituality and Spiritualism and Christianity hold to the concept of the immortal soul. The final sentence is more in line with Fundamentalism as opposed to modern Christian thought. The authority of Scripture is usually a Fundamentalist technique used to say their particular interpretation of Scriptures is true, what they say is literal is literal and what they say is symbolic is symbolic and what they say is a metaphor is a metaphor, they become the authority of scriptures. The exclusivity of Jesus Christ also carrying the fundamentalist understanding; meaning that if one does not believe in Jesus Christ whether they ever heard of Christ or not they will not be saved. Something that Ellen White did not even believe. But it is still commonly used to imply that if someone believes God can save people who are members of other religions or never have heard of Christ or don’t believe in the type of Christ that some Christians have taught; that if we believe God can still save them we don’t believe in the exclusivity of Jesus Christ. Herb Douglas is using some very loaded language.

Herb Douglas concludes his second article with a list of seven reasons non-Adventist churches are leaping into new spirituality. I will paraphrase them as: 1. Churches using new names rather then just saying Baptist or Methodist. 2. Churches not appealing to “absolute truth” and trying to converse with others who are not even Christians. 3. Churches looking for spiritual healing, meaning physical healing, the use of alternative medicine and stories of miracles. 4. Different ways of experiencing the holy. 5. Mystical rituals and Retreat Centers. 6. Saying that traditional Christianity is not reaching the post modern world. 7. Tolerance of other religions.

Now most of these are fairly reasonable. But like most things these can be taken to extreme just as traditionalism can be taken to an extreme. Most all churches have mystical rituals and stories of miracles, those that appeal to themselves as having absolute truth are self deceived and most are concerned that Christianity is in decline in the western world. If the church has any sense they will pay attention and try to reach this now post modern world. So I don’t find Herb’s list any too impressive.

In part 3 Herbert Douglas asks why are Adventists attracted to emergent churches. The answer it appears is that Adventists have lost their winsome messages because of the publication of the divisive book Questions on Doctrines, producing “whirlwind of fifty years of theological muddle”. That led to Dr. Douglas’ favorite topic last generation perfection as he notes in his article:

* Bull and Lockhart, two English historians, in their remarkable book, Seeking a Sanctuary (second edition, 2007) summed up the theological fork in the road that our seminary began to take as a consequence of the 1957 drift of Questions on Doctrine: "The focus on the crucifixion encouraged by Questions on Doctrine was taken further by the Adventist theologian Edward Heppenstall. . . . His solution to the difficulty of explaining how the sinner could reach perfection was to argue that perfection was neither necessary nor possible. . . . (that) sinlessness cannot be realized here and now." (86-87).

Thus the problem with the Emergent church is that it is not working on the pre 1950’s Adventist orthodoxy. So our pastors find that youth pastors seek techniques involving mimes or clowns “pulpit bands (with their accents on the second beat)” dramatic skits etc. When we should be looking at the GYC conventions where dedicated traditionalist Adventist youth listen to powerful talks by traditionalist Adventists. In other words there is a fork in the road and that fork is traditionalism with its fundamentalist view of absolute truth and everything else on the other fork. Emergent church being part of the everything else, it should be avoided. Simple enough.

In part 4 Dr. Douglas perhaps gives us the reason he does not give any examples of what Emergent churches believe, thus he gave no validation to his assertions aside from they are not traditional Adventists, he writes:

“If anyone tries to define what Emergents or Emerging Church or New Spirituality believes, it is like trying to nail Jello against the wall. And that seems to be exactly what the various Emergents want. The lack of a common belief system is intentional; that is precisely why "conversation" is their chosen word for what they do/think. Their ideas are exploring, and experimenting, but not defining in any way. I find that refreshing in a way, but surely frustrating.”

I found it extremely frustrating that someone would condemn something that he can’t define and can’t document aside from saying that is not what I believe. He then spent a good deal of space with extreme statements, he is against this extreme and that extreme, rather a waste of time but his final line indicates he is not done with his series as I had originally thought. He writes:

“Next time we will let the Emergent leaders speak for themselves.”

I really don’t think he will, I think he will choose a few quotes that make some Emergent Church leaders look like they are contrary to Traditional Adventism and Traditional Adventist methods. Which they naturally are, not being SDA’s . Spending no time on areas where they may even agree with his traditionalism. After all one of the Emergent church leaders he mentions is Rob Bell, someone who does a lot of short Videos. So as I close and wait for Herb’s final chapter spend a few minutes watching one of Rob Bell’s videos.

Resurrection: Rob Bell from The Work of Rob Bell on Vimeo.

Evidence that leads to transformation

I have a friend you is in many ways a traditional Adventist. However he has come to the conclusion that the evidence is too massive to accept the idea that the earth is 6000-7000 years old. Of course many of us have gone through this transformation of thought long ago, but it is a transformation that is of critical importance because it means that the Christian has entered a new age of reasoning. It is of course only the beginning but an important beginning none the less.

The reason it starts this new age of reason may not be totally due to the evidence of science but a reaction to those who will deny the evidence of science. Soon if my friend has not encountered it already he will hear comments from traditional Adventist such as those made by Robert Pierson in his final address to the general conference On October 15, 1978 in his speech entitled An Earnest Appeal from the Retiring President of the General Conference presented to Annual Council Pierson states:

Already, brethren and sisters, there are subtle forces that are beginning to stir. Regrettably there are those in the church who belittle the inspiration of the Bible, who scorn the first 11 chapters of Genesis, who question the Spirit of Prophecy’s short chronology of the earth, and who subtly and not so subtly attack the Spirit of Prophecy. There are some who point to the reformers and contemporary theologians as a source and the norm for Seventh-day Adventist doctrine. There are those who allegedly are tired of the hackneyed phrases of Adventism. There are those who wish to forget the standards of the church we love. There are those who covet and would court the favor of the evangelicals; those who would throw off the mantle of a peculiar people; and those who would go the way of the secular, materialistic world.

Unfortunately my friend will now have to endure the accusations of fundamentalists, not quite the fundamentalist of orthodox Christianity but near enough they just have to add the Spirit of Prophecy to their fundamentalism. He is about to learn just how certain the traditional Adventist is and if you don’t agree with their form of fundamentalism you belittle inspiration and forget the old time standards; you deny inspiration and are immoral.

How will he deal with that? There are a few main options:

1. Cave in and recant his heresy.
2. Leave Christianity altogether.
3. Learn alternative ways of interpreting the Bible and/or Ellen White’s writings.

Learning other ways of interpreting the Bible is the primary method used when Christians find that what they have traditionally believed doesn’t necessarily work. The traditionalist will of course say that this is the first step to leaving Christianity. It may be turn out to be the first step in the exodus or it may not be. In some ways it will depend upon the reaction of those traditionalists in the local church. As Pierson continues:

Fellow leaders, beloved brethren and sisters—don’t let it happen! I appeal to you as earnestly as I know how this morning—don’t let it happen! I appeal to Andrews University, to the Seminary, to Loma Linda University—don’t let it happen! We are not Seventh-day Anglicans, not Seventh-day Lutherans—we are Seventh-day Adventists! This is God’s last church with God’s last message.

You are the men and women, the leaders, whom God is counting on to keep the Seventh-day Adventist Church God’s remnant church, the church God has destined to triumph!

Pierson sets out the way to drive Adventists out of the church if they don’t hold to the traditionalism of certain Adventists. We are God’s remnant church because we say we are we are a peculiar people because we hold beliefs which nobody else holds. Is that what God really meant by a peculiar people? Not if you read what the Bible describes as a peculiar people see: (Deu 14:2 KJV) For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth. [(Deu 26:18 KJV) is kind of hard to apply to people other then the Hebrews] (Titus 2:14 KJV) Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. (1 Pet 2:9 KJV) But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light:

You just can’t take all those texts particularly the New Testament ones and say they are about your particular denomination to the exclusion of all the other Christian believers. But that is a view that you don’t get to until you have the experience of questioning the traditional beliefs and learning how to really study the Bible and develop real methods of interpretation rather then interpretation based upon what tradition teaches.

Reflections on Gen 3:6 Is it Ok to disagree with the prophet?

In my previous article on Genesis 3:6 I noted the overwhelming desire of Adventists to embellish the story. Of course this tendency is found throughout the Christian world as I showed in my article about Jimmy Swaggart’s commentary that told us how God told Adam and Eve all about the sacrificial system. It becomes a powerful tool to redefine the Bible stories to fit them to what we decide we want them to be. Jimmy Swaggart is able to claim that God helped him write his commentary and that it is the most doctrinally correct book he knows of. The Latter Day Saints do something very similar with their book, the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith said: "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion…”

Like so many others, Joseph Smith and the LDS followers find their fulfillment by redefining the Genesis story to suit their needs. One of the important doctrines of the LDS church is that people on earth provide the earthly bodies for all the spirit children in heaven. So man had to fall so that mankind could reproduce. So in the Book of Mormon in Moses 5 we read: 10 And in that day Adam blessed God and was ^afilled, and began to ^bprophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my ^ctransgression my ^deyes are opened, and in this life I shall have ^ejoy, and again in the ^fflesh I shall see God. 11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had ^aseed, and never should have ^bknown good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.

You may think you can dissuade them from thinking this is true by quoting the Bible where it says “be fruitful and multiply” but you would be sorely mistaken. When invested with prophetic authority it is easy to assert that the meaning is as the supposed prophet has attested. It matters little what the context of the story said when one has the churches own prophet to assert to what really happened.

This was brought home to me most powerfully by the teacher of my Sabbath School class as he discussed my blog article on Gen 3:6. He noted that the story has the possibility for meaning that Eve was away from Adam and she came back to Adam with the forbidden fruit and Adam immediately saw she was different and decided to also eat because he did not want to be alone. In fact he pretty much repeated it the way Ellen White wrote the incident. Since it was a possibility and we are part of the SDA church and the SDA church has a prophet (even a fundamental belief that she is an authority on truth) he feels most secure in accepting her account. Speculating on possibilities becomes more important then accepting the story as it reads because we have a tradition, a specific viewpoint to defend. It is a possibility after all, just as the LDS verses for Moses 5 are a possibility. Possibilities are ever present, only subject to the imagination but is possible alternatives unmentioned in the Bible stories what the Bible is trying to tell its readers?

With all these possibilities it is easy to form the logic where tradition can become in itself an authority such as happened in the Roman Catholic Church. This is what we have believed and because we have believed it, now and forever more the tradition has the authority as divine revelation. Now of course we don’t accept the tradition as an authority from the Roman Catholic Church or from the LDS Church, however our own tradition, that is sacrosanct. Does that sound like the way to search for truth? If we question them should we not also question ourselves?

So what do we do in our churches if someone questions the views of Ellen White? Should it be assumed that if the story in the Bible differs from Ellen White’s version we should simply accept Ellen White’s version because we have invested her with authority? What do we do with those who have not invested her with authority? Making matters more complicated there are many who while investing her with authority acknowledge that she sometimes spoke with authority on things that were only her opinion. Others in my Sabbath School class say that we must give even more authority to any of her “I was shown” or the “Lord said” statements. One person in the class even questioned whether some of the “I was shown” statements were not merely also her opinion of what she thought God was showing her. Note, none of these were my comments as I don’t really talk about Ellen White in Sabbath school classes; it is a hot button issue and if our classes are looking at the Bible then I think we can deal with what the Bible says. Most Adventist have not studied the issues involved and their opinions are often based upon assumptions rather then what Ellen White really said, see footnote below.

Even before the 21^st century our church was at a crossroads regarding Ellen White. But as we redefine our church for the new century we must also define how she is dealt with in our Church and Sabbath School classes. Will some in the church use her as the hammer of God to declare this is what God says through the “pen of inspiration.” As if to disagree with Ellen White is to reject God. This has traditionally been the SDA perspective, leadership and responsibility must not be given to those who question Ellen White. Yet in fact we regularly edit her statements because we don’t think they apply anymore, we say take the principle behind the statement. What is the principle behind the statement in the quarterly on Gen 3:6 where it said: "The angels had cautioned Eve to beware of separating herself from her husband while occupied in their daily labor in the garden; with him she would be in less danger from temptation than if she were alone."—Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 53. The principle there; that woman is the weaker person who is more likely to fall into temptation then the man even in an unfallen world. No, since it is an addition to the Bible stories most SDA’s don’t look at the principle they take the account as a literal description of events. If on the other hand we look at her admonition to not play chess or checkers or a host of games SDA’s say it is the principle that we should not waste our time with too much play. Or some may say the principle is that we should not engage in competitive activity. What of those who want to hold to her statements about games literally? I can tell you when the Davidians visited our class with their literalistic Ellen White views few of us felt comfortable with them.

The answer to the above questions will often depend on how an individual interprets the work of Ellen White. But we are inviting nothing but trouble if the leadership in the church allows Ellen White to trump all opinions. We will never have a safe environment in our churches if we allow the “Ellen White said,” trump card to be played. Not only will we drive many current SDA’s out of our churches and Sabbath Schools, but we will alienate fellow Christian visitors and very likely the seeker who sees value in the Bible yet is far away from accepting a nineteenth century denominational prophet.

No doubt some will read this and say that Ellen White’s prophecy that some will make the “testimonies of none effect” has come true. But then the splinter groups hold that such has already happened in the Adventist church and the traditionalists in the Adventist church feel that way about the Progressive Adventists. It is really just another matter of interpretation and depends upon whose special doctrines someone feels are being trampled.

Here is something from the July 2007 issue of Adventist Today, the conclusion of the editorial by Ervin Taylor entitled Celebrating Unity and Diversity.

The leadership of the 21^st Century corporate Adventism, especially in North America, is currently confronted with an opportunity to rethink how it will deal institutionally with the reality that many loyal and committed Adventists in educational and medical centers hold what can be considered minority views on a whole host of topics. Is the Adventist Church now mature enough to embrace an appropriate unity, where diversity is recognized as a vital part of growth? Or shall we follow the counsel of those who, even in the pages of the Adventist Review, regularly call for the exclusion of minority viewpoints from Adventist University and College campuses and Adventist pulpits? Pluralism and tolerance are adult virtues that deserve a significant place in the increasingly complex Adventist world.

Footnote: The person who stated many of Ellen White statements are her own opinion would have to seriously redefine their postion if they were presented with her own words where she says:

"Yet now when I send you a testimony of warning and reproof, many of you declare it to be merely the opinion of Sister White. You have thereby insulted the Spirit of God. You know how the Lord has manifested himself through the spirit of prophecy. Past, present, and future have passed before me. I have been shown faces that I had never seen, and years afterward I knew them when I saw them. I have been aroused from my sleep with a vivid sense of subjects previously presented to my mind; and I have written at midnight letters that have gone across the continent, and, arriving at a crisis, have saved great disaster to the cause of God. This has been my work for many years. A power has impelled me to reprove and rebuke wrongs that I had not thought of. Is this work of the last thirty-six years from above, or from beneath? . . . ( Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 1906-08-30 Also General Conference Bulletins 1913-06-02 and Testimonies for the Church Volume 5 page 64 1889

See also: 5T.687.003 Testimonies for the Church Vol 687

5T.688.001 4T.229.002 5T.098.002 Testimony for the church at Battle Creek 1882 PH117.084.003 5T.671.002 Pamphlet to J.N. Andrews and Sister H.N. Smith 016.022.002